Mrlmrl

Hi Often1, thank you for replying.
I'm copying the whole reason section by CEDR:

Reasons for decision

1. After reviewing the submissions provided, I have found that the passenger has contended that she was denied boarding to the Flight and agents of the airline were unable to inform her as to why. The passenger states that she had the boarding passes in hand and was one of the first people to approach the boarding gate. The passenger states that she was informed that she was not checked-in for the Flight, this had been cancelled, and the agents could not explain why this had been cancelled. The passenger states that she called the airline’s customer service number at this point and she was only advised to buy a replacement ticket. The passenger states that this resulted in her incurring further costs on transportation to and from PMI, on hotel accommodation and on alternative flights. The passenger states that the airline subsequently altered its response to her complaint, arguing that its agents had requested to see the credit card which had been used to purchase the booking for the Flight, and that she had failed to present this credit card. The passenger argues that at no point did an agent request to see the credit card in contention and should such a request have been made it could have been easily satisfied; the passenger was in possession of the credit card at that point in time. The passenger is therefore requesting that the airline reimburse her for the consequential losses incurred and provide her with compensation in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation 261 in the total sum of €xx

2. The airline has rebutted the passenger’s claims stating that she had purchased a one-way ticket on the xx of July 2018, and during the booking it was confirmed that the payment was being made by a passenger on the booking. The airline states that, later the same date, a member of its Corporate Security department placed notes on the booking reference requesting that the passenger present the credit card used to purchase the booking prior to boarding. The airline admits that the passenger was able to check-in for the Flight online and was provided with boarding passes, however, the ground handling staff at PMI have confirmed that the passenger was unable to present the credit card used to purchase the booking, and therefore she was denied boarding to the Flight. The airline further argues that the notes left within the passenger’s booking reference show that the passenger was informed of the circumstances surrounding the denial of boarding, and it would be highly unlikely that the ground handling staff would not have informed her that she was required to present the credit card used to purchase this booking. The airline therefore denies that it should be liable to compensate the passenger for the denial of boarding that occurred, or the consequential losses incurred as a result.

3. After reviewing all of the above, in conjunction with the documentary evidence provided, I have found that the airline has provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the passenger was requested to present the credit card used to purchase the booking in contention at the boarding gate, and she was unable to do so. Whilst I note the passenger’s contentions that she was not informed as to the reason she was being refused carriage, the airline has provided a copy of an email from the ground handling staff at PMI and they have contended that the passenger was denied boarding to the Flight as she was unable to present the credit card at the boarding gate. I am further satisfied that the agents at PMI would have been aware of the circumstances given that the note recorded at 17:11z within the passenger’s booking reference was clear in that the passenger must present the credit card and if she was unable to do so she would be required to purchase another ticket in person. In any event, the notes recorded on the passenger’s booking reference indicate that the customer was informed as to why she would need to purchase another ticket, and she was informed that she would need to purchase another ticket and pay face to face.

4. With the above considered, I am satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate that agents of the airline did request to see the credit card used to purchase the booking in contention, the passenger was unable to present this card and therefore she was refused carriage to the Flight. Whilst I note the passenger’s contentions that she is unable to prove a negative, i.e. she cannot provide that the airline did not request this information, I find that the evidence provided by the airline is persuasive in that it did request to see this credit card. The airline has provided a statement from the groundling handling agents at PMI indicating that such action was taken, and the notes recorded in the passenger’s booking reference show that she was required to present the credit card prior to boarding.

5. As I have found that the passenger was denied boarding as she was unable to present the credit card used to purchase the booking prior to boarding the Flight, I am mindful that Article 2(j) of Regulation 261 defines ‘denied boarding’ as:
“… a refusal to carry passengers on a flight, although they have presented themselves for boarding under the conditions laid down in Article 3(2), except where there are reasonable grounds to deny them boarding, such as reasons of health, safety or security, or inadequate travel documentation;”

6. Considering that the passenger was denied boarding as she was unable to certify the credit card used to purchase the booking, and the passenger was required to do so as a result of the airline’s fraud prevention procedures, I find that the airline did have reasonable grounds to deny the passenger boarding to the Flight. The passenger would have been able to board the Flight had she have been able to present the credit card used to purchase the booking at the boarding gate, however, she was unable to do so. With this being the case, I am satisfied that the airline had reasonable grounds to deny the passenger boarding to the Flight, and therefore the passenger is not entitled to recover compensation in accordance with Article 7 of Regulation 261, and neither is she entitled to recover the consequential losses claimed which are provided for under Regulation 261.

7. In addition to the above, I am satisfied that the contract of carriage by air is explicit in that the airline retains the rights to deny a passenger boarding should they not comply with the instructions of the ground staff, or if they are unable to present the requisite travel documents upon request. The evidence and submissions provided show that the ground staff requested the passenger to present the credit card used to purchase the booking in contention, in accordance with its fraud prevent procedures, and the passenger was unable to present this credit card; this can be deemed as a matter of security. With this being the case, I am satisfied that the airline was entitled to deny the passenger boarding to the Flight under the contract of carriage by air, and therefore I do not agree that the passenger’s claims can succeed on this basis either.

8. It follows that I am not satisfied that the passenger’s claims can succeed in this instance. Although I note the passenger’s argument that she was in possession of the credit card, and no agent asked her to present this credit card, the evidence provided by the airline contradicts this argument. In the absence of any further evidence to rebut that of the airline’s, I find that the airline did have reasonable grounds to deny the passenger boarding under Regulation 261, and, given the circumstances, the contract of carriage by air permitted the airline to refuse the passenger carriage. As a result, I do not agree that the passenger can recover compensation pursuant to Article 7 of Regulation 261, and neither can she recover the costs incurred as a result of this refusal of carriage.

Decision
• The passenger’s claim does not succeed.